Home » Uncategorized » old post: Choices in an impossibly uncertain world

old post: Choices in an impossibly uncertain world

Imagine all the universities you could attend, or  careers you could pursue, or possible romantic partners whom you could  date. From such variety, how can you choose?
I rather fell in love with this question early. I was an economics  major for much of my time as an undergrad, and the answer from that  perspective was that one maximizes utility. Figure out what's important  to you and how likely it is that the various alternatives (which you've  carefully enumerated) will yield that which is important.
Ah, but then I learned of the psychology of decision making, and was  even fortunate enough to take courses from the late psychologist Amos  Tversky. That maximizationideal of economists is so often impossible.  Our futures are uncertain, our desires malleable, our choices  indeterminate. So what is one to do?
I'm just back from a symposium on this issue. Sheena Iyengar (who  has a pretty terrific TED talk if you'd like to hear her) discussed the  consequences of having more and more choice. She emphasized that  experts actually do better with more choice and spun this into the  larger point that having more options might cause the most problems when  the type of choice we're making is most difficult, such as when we are  inexpert. (And how many of us have made sufficient mistakes in choosing  colleges, careers, and spouses such that we are now expert?!) She  argued that part of what makes our choices difficult is that we use them  to define ourselves. How do you know who I am?; By my career, college,  spouse. Left unasked by Iyengar...what if we find other ways to define  ourselves? Might more choice then be less paralyzing?
Barry Schwartz (who also has a great TED talk you could watch) spoke  of maximizers vs. satisficers. The former believe they need to make the  best choice, the latter :"good enough" choices. Schwartz recalled the  Ellsburg Paradox. Imagine two urns. One has 50 blue balls and 50 red.  You get $10 if you choose a red ball, $ otherwise. The other urn has  100 balls, some blue, some red, but you don't know how many. You get  the same outcomes for drawing a red or blue ball. Which do you prefer?  Specifying a probability in the second choice is impossible. We don't  have the information needed. If we don't know the probability, how can  we maximize? He calls that second urn "radical uncertainty."; In how  much of our lives is that second urn the one from which we draw? In  choosing colleges, we might consider student/faculty ratios, school  size, social life, cost, location, and a dozen other alternatives, some  of which (e.g., social life) are wildly uncertain. Given that, how can  we maximize? Now, maximizers sometimes make "objectively better  choices." For instance, maximizers earn higher starting salaries in  their first jobs than do satisficers. But...maximizers are also less  content with their choices, wondering, for instance, if they could not  have made even better choices. How are we to choose and to live? Do we  prefer the extra money earned by the maximizers or the extra  satisfaction of satisficers?
Finally Erin Sparks described new data about maximizing and the  desire to delay decisions. First, well, maximizers prefer to delay  decisions and they also prefer choices that allow them to change their  mind. But there's an interesting separate line of research that once  people commit, they like better that which they have chosen. In one  study, Sparks had students rank 15 posters.They then were given their  choice of the middling posters to take home, after which they re-ranked  the posters. Satisficers increased their liking of the chosen poster  immediately after choosing and liked it even more a week later.  Maximizers? Well, no. They didn't come to like better the poster they  chose. Perhaps maximizing leads to lives of failing to commit, thus  living with constant mulling over of possibilities and the  dissatisfaction that comes with that.
So what is one to do? Iyengar's answer is to maximize for the most  important things, but to satisfice otherwise, pointing to such things as  the higher starting salaries of maximizers. That would suggest that it  would be difficult to commit to that which is most important in our  lives and we would live with less satisfaction with our choices in those  areas, but perhaps we would make objectively better choices. Schwartz's  answer is the opposite--to satisfice particularly when it's important.  He gave the example of chooosing a doctor. If we try to choose the  best doctor, will we then keep looking for the faults with that doctor  and fail to commit ourselves to a path toward recovery?; Perhaps we  should find a good enough doctor, satisficing so that we can commit and  garner the benefits of that commitment, the benefits of sticking to a  course and the satisfaction that comes from convincing ourselves we've  made the right choice.
It's interesting to consider the consequences of societal trends  toward increased choice--lives of changing jobs, transferring schools,  moving around the globe, obtaining relatively easy divorces. Do these  trends make maximizers less likely to commit, for good (possibly making  better choices) or for ill (possibly making people less satisfied with  their choices and less likely to gain the benefits of commitment)?
Yes, I'm ending with that question, rather than an answer.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: